politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the 3rd successive month YouGov Brexit tracker has “wrong
Comments
-
Personally I agree. But that is a separate argument to the one FF43 is making which is that the new trade relationship will inevitably be bad for UK farmers. The figures and the NFU both say the opposite.surbiton said:
We are becoming independent and we have a budget deficit. So the spongers can sod off.Richard_Tyndall said:
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.FF43 said:The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.0 -
The Saudis are looking for a war. With the country being fleeced by the extensive Royal family, getting bogged down in Yemen and their ISIS creation finally put down by Iran and Russia: like all imperialist powers they are looking for a distraction - start a war. The easy one - start a civil war in the Lebanon.CarlottaVance said:
The Saudis are an inefficient lot. Thinking simply, they thought bankrolling their wahabi sidekicks , ISIS will create a Sunni bastion in Iraq and Syria. How did that one end ?0 -
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
0 -
Mr. L, ah, so it was a bit like (albeit more geographically separate) the absolutely not Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine?0
-
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.0 -
I am only speculating but yes.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, ah, so it was a bit like (albeit more geographically separate) the absolutely not Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine?
0 -
In a sense, it will because produce from cheaper producing countries: Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada , Argentina will flood in. These countries have all shown interest in having trade deals with the UK. You bet they are not going to roll over their terms of trade with the EU to the UK. They will want better exporting opportunities for their produce. Why shouldn't they ? They all know the UK will be desperate to sign trade deals.Richard_Tyndall said:
Personally I agree. But that is a separate argument to the one FF43 is making which is that the new trade relationship will inevitably be bad for UK farmers. The figures and the NFU both say the opposite.surbiton said:
We are becoming independent and we have a budget deficit. So the spongers can sod off.Richard_Tyndall said:
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.FF43 said:The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.0 -
I expect T May is willing him to go then....DavidL said:
In fairness, if there is a real risk of a missile attack on Tehran I can understand the hesitation.Scott_P said:
@krishgm: Still no confirmation whether @BorisJohnson is going to Iran from @foreignoffice @SMcDonaldFCO after his costly error re Nazanin Zaghari-RatcliffeDavidL said:If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
0 -
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
0 -
If you're into plausible conspiracy theories, Mr.D, there is an excellent one here;Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/11/09/is-there-more-to-trumps-thumbs-up-picture/0 -
I didn't realise those missile defence systems actually worked.DavidL said:
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
0 -
Iran did not fire the missile. Iran is not North Korea.DavidL said:
That missile aimed at Riyadh story is just weird and frankly alarming. You wonder if their leadership has control of their armed forces, let alone their judiciary.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.DavidL said:If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?0 -
Does "wrong to leave" mean "wrong to leave but we should still respect the outcome of the referendum" or does it mean "wrong to leave and we should not leave despite the referendum result"?0
-
I bet the Americans are seriously chuffed and the South Koreans may well be taking some comfort too.rkrkrk said:
I didn't realise those missile defence systems actually worked.DavidL said:
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
0 -
IBM announces reaching the 50 qubit milestone in their quantum computing research:
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53374.wss0 -
LOL. Mrs May has many faults but she is an honourable person (and not in a Brutus sense either).Slackbladder said:
I expect T May is willing him to go then....DavidL said:
In fairness, if there is a real risk of a missile attack on Tehran I can understand the hesitation.Scott_P said:
@krishgm: Still no confirmation whether @BorisJohnson is going to Iran from @foreignoffice @SMcDonaldFCO after his costly error re Nazanin Zaghari-RatcliffeDavidL said:If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
0 -
That is a beautiful thing.Nigelb said:IBM announces reaching the 50 qubit milestone in their quantum computing research:
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53374.wss0 -
0
-
The second point is unarguable. The first...not so much.surbiton said:
Iran did not fire the missile. Iran is not North Korea.DavidL said:
That missile aimed at Riyadh story is just weird and frankly alarming. You wonder if their leadership has control of their armed forces, let alone their judiciary.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.DavidL said:If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?0 -
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.0 -
Boris got us here.rkrkrk said:
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?0 -
The trade with the rUK figure is a bit misleading, unfortunately, as it's dominated by public sector procurement contracts. For private sector-to-private sector it's about 60:40 between rUK and the Republic, and - of course - the closer you get to the Border, the more than number shifts away from us.CarlottaVance said:
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.0 -
-
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.Ishmael_Z said:
Boris got us here.rkrkrk said:
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
0 -
Mr. rpjs, then dodgy ****s can dust off their pro-IRA banners from yesteryear and start blaming the British.0
-
I don't think it means either: the question is as put. Implicitly, it means 'if we'd not had the referendum, then knowing what you know now, how would you vote if there was a referendum tomorrow?'.AndyJS said:Does "wrong to leave" mean "wrong to leave but we should still respect the outcome of the referendum" or does it mean "wrong to leave and we should not leave despite the referendum result"?
0 -
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
0 -
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.rpjs said:
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.SouthamObserver said:
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.SouthamObserver said:
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.0 -
So our new policy is to let the IRA decide what we do?rpjs said:
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
Presumably we'd make sure customs centres would be co-owned with the Republic and staffed 50:50.
The real danger with Northern Ireland is not a few customs checks. It's that we have a cliff edge Brexit where cross border trade essentially freezes up. Trade with the EU is something like 20% of GDP in Northern Ireland, so it's a massively higher percentage than in rUK, and the this leads to a very serious Northern Irish recession.
I think Nationalist pressure in Northern Ireland combined with Unionist anger at the British government for failing to secure a deal could have very serious consequences.
Fortunately, I think a deal will be reached.0 -
In GBP terms getting close to £50AndyJS said:Oil price up to $64
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60¤cy=gbp0 -
Seems fair when the DUP is also deciding what we do.rcs1000 said:
So our new policy is to let the IRA decide what we do?rpjs said:
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
I believe it is one of the terms of The Good Friday Agreement,0 -
Scottish Indie back on boys!calum said:
In GBP terms getting close to £50AndyJS said:Oil price up to $64
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60¤cy=gbp0 -
We don’t know what will be implemented. That’s the problem. The worse case scenario is a lot worse than the Swiss border, which is as it is thanks to a deal with the EU the government has explicitly rejected.rcs1000 said:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.CarlottaVance said:Charles Grant:
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
0 -
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.rkrkrk said:
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.Ishmael_Z said:
Boris got us here.rkrkrk said:
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.0 -
F1: second practice about to get underway. This is the same sort of time that qualifying and the race will start so will perhaps be the best indicator of race pace.
Bit early, but I'm off now. As I said before, pre-qualifying ramble will hopefully be up tomorrow afternoon.0 -
Is this one reason why inflation is getting higher?calum said:
In GBP terms getting close to £50AndyJS said:Oil price up to $64
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60¤cy=gbp0 -
Yes I agree - I'd fire him regardless.Ishmael_Z said:
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.rkrkrk said:
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.Ishmael_Z said:
Boris got us here.rkrkrk said:
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
To use a football analogy, there have just been too many fouls not to have a second yellow.
TM appears to be waiting for the straight red, horror tackle to avoid any argument and properly bury his leadership chances.0 -
Certainly a factor - will push up food etc as well as fuelAndyJS said:
Is this one reason why inflation is getting higher?calum said:
In GBP terms getting close to £50AndyJS said:Oil price up to $64
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60¤cy=gbp0 -
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.0 -
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.Richard_Nabavi said:
My mistake, and, yes you are right about 50(3).david_herdson said:
Yes it does.Richard_Nabavi said:I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
http://www.open-britain.co.uk/full_text_of_lord_kerr_s_speech_article_50_the_facts
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Article 50(2): "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ..."
Which unhelpfully conflates the two different things - but it doesn't really matter because despite what Lord Kerr says, that's not the crucial clause. The crucial one is 50(3):
Article 50(3): "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And the crucial phase is "shall cease to apply". There is no 'unless' there; there is no provision for revoking notification; it is absolute - shall cease to apply. There's nothing to prevent a country from notifying a decision to not withdraw but it would have no effective standing because Article 50(3) would still apply.
The decisive event is the notification, not the intent that might have gone into it.
Edit: Further, your interpretation is made even stronger by the presence of an 'unless' in relation to extending the period.0 -
She might of course be quite happy letting him keep digging, given the risks of the alternative? His career prospects have been in decline ever since he got the job.rkrkrk said:
Yes I agree - I'd fire him regardless.Ishmael_Z said:
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.rkrkrk said:
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.Ishmael_Z said:
Boris got us here.rkrkrk said:
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
To use a football analogy, there have just been too many fouls not to have a second yellow.
TM appears to be waiting for the straight red, horror tackle to avoid any argument and properly bury his leadership chances.0 -
What is notable is the lack of direct Roman influence, considering that England was a Roman province (or provinces) for roughly the same time as it was under Saxon rule. To the extent that Latin is an influence, it seems to be overwhelmingly from the Norman era rather than the Roman.IanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.rpjs said:
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.SouthamObserver said:
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.SouthamObserver said:
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.0 -
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times.IanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.rpjs said:
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.SouthamObserver said:
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.SouthamObserver said:
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.0 -
I think it highly irresponsible to reporti that Johnson's job depends on whether Mrs Zeghari-Ratcliffe's prison is increased.0
-
Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?0
-
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.0 -
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.IanB2 said:With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
0 -
+1FF43 said:I think it highly irresponsible to reporti that Johnson's job depends on whether Mrs Zeghari-Ratcliffe's prison is increased.
-1 -
If anyone is still in the slightest bit interested in farmers' incomes after Brexit, this table from the NFU sets it out more clearly.
The probable outcome is a hybrid of columns 2 and 3. The tricky thing for prediction is that a column 2 prediction increases incomes (except for sheep and crops) while a column 3 prediction decreases it. Beef farmers could see their incomes increase by 29% or decrease by 50%, leaving aside reductions in farm support and increases in wage costs. In my view it will likely be more 3 than 2, so farm incomes will decrease somewhat overall.
0 -
Another subject of current debate. Personally I find that the theory that the people living in the SE before the Angles and Saxons pitched up here were themselves of Germanic rather than 'Celtic' origin does resolve many of the mysteries being debated when I studied Anglo-Saxon history as a student.OldKingCole said:
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times.IanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.rpjs said:
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.SouthamObserver said:
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.Richard_Tyndall said:SouthamObserver said:
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.0 -
Another entry for @Cyclefree dictionary: "clarity" EU-ese for "more dosh".0
-
Yep. But more important than the DNA evidence is the isotope analysis which can show where people were born and grew up.OldKingCole said:
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times.
IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.0 -
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
I could manage a top 10 all on my own.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
That would be fantastic.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.Richard_Tyndall said:
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.0 -
Shame it doesn't match the evidence from the Sub-RB sites I have been excavating for the last 30 years.IanB2 said:
Another subject of current debate. Personally I find that the theory that the people living in the SE before the Angles and Saxons pitched up here were themselves of Germanic rather than 'Celtic' origin does resolve many of the mysteries being debated when I studied Anglo-Saxon history as a student.0 -
Modern UK DNA is by far the strongest evidence of elite takeover. In terms of place names, that’s very much about control of written language. The elite had that via the clergy and royal officials.Richard_Tyndall said:
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
0 -
Do you have any favourite articles you'd recommend reading on this?Richard_Tyndall said:
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.0 -
Yes - AV at it !Winstanley said:
That would be fantastic.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
That's what the comment section is for - maybe we could have a contest ?AlastairMeeks said:
I could manage a top 10 all on my own.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
(Though how anyone would beat Roger...)0 -
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.0 -
Didn't one poster say that there was a higher chance of an asteroid hitting him/her than Macron becoming French President?rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
So could I.AlastairMeeks said:
I could manage a top 10 all on my own.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
I think the thread were I said don't back Donald Trump at 150/1 to be the next President might be number 1
I think my thread from a few weeks ago tipping Sir Michael Fallon as next PM is worthy of mention in dispatches.0 -
Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
You do have to wonder if they realise how much more entrenched Brexit will become as all these privileged Metropolitan elite declare their abiding love for the EU and attempt to stop Brexit0 -
Did we ever hear from them again? I fear the worst ...rcs1000 said:
Didn't one poster say that there was a higher chance of an asteroid hitting him/her than Macron becoming French President?rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
Not really. There is a distinct lack of post Roman Celtic inscription in any of the areas that had previously been occupied by the Romans. More importantly there is a distinct lack of such inscriptions dating from the Roman period either. If they didn't survive 400 years of Roman occupation they ate hardly likely to.pop up again afterwards.IanB2 said:
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.Richard_Tyndall said:
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.0 -
we need some more "shortly there will be an election..." momentsWinstanley said:
That would be fantastic.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
The trick is to be so vague that whatever happens you can claim to have predicted it. See: Vince Cable, the man who predicted the credit crunch.TheScreamingEagles said:
So could I.AlastairMeeks said:
I could manage a top 10 all on my own.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
I think the thread were I said don't back Donald Trump at 150/1 to be the next President might be number 1
I think my thread from a few weeks ago tipping Sir Michael Fallon as next PM is worthy of mention in dispatches.0 -
is she that fat ?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
Indeed. There’s the famous case of the guy at Stonehenge.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. But more important than the DNA evidence is the isotope analysis which can show where people were born and grew up.OldKingCole said:
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times.
IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.0 -
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
My General Counsel used to work with her, and has nothing but good things to say about her. Apparently an extremely talented and bright lawyer.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
Makes you wonder what she was doing with Mr Clegg.0 -
Eating one’s hat doesn’t compare, does it.rcs1000 said:
Didn't one poster say that there was a higher chance of an asteroid hitting him/her than Macron becoming French President?rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
I am sure she is but just adds to the narrative of an elite trying to derail Brexitrcs1000 said:
My General Counsel used to work with her, and has nothing but good things to say about her. Apparently an extremely talented and bright lawyer.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
Makes you wonder what she was doing with Mr Clegg.0 -
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.OldKingCole said:
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.surbiton said:
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
The endgame is approaching...
0 -
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politicallyTheScreamingEagles said:
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.OldKingCole said:
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
Scott_P said:
It is not a case of the Iranians choosing whether Boris stays or goes, if he is sacked it will be through his own monumental incompetence and his weasel-worded attempt to absolve himself of any blame over the issue.rkrkrk said:
If he stays, the only explanation is that the whole episode was a splendid ruse to bamboozle the Iranians into freeing Mrs Ratcliffe.0 -
Roger seems to specialise in sex scandal - Saville “fuss about nothing” Spacey “destined for greater things’,.,..Nigelb said:
(Though how anyone would beat Roger...)AlastairMeeks said:
I could manage a top 10 all on my own.rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politicallyTheScreamingEagles said:
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.OldKingCole said:
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I note that our moment of Brexit is determined by midnight in Brussels, rather than by GMT.0
-
Source pleaseanothernick said:
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.surbiton said:
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
The endgame is approaching...0 -
Agreed but do you really think that will happen this side of BrexitTheScreamingEagles said:
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politicallyTheScreamingEagles said:
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.OldKingCole said:
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
0 -
Probably a legal requirementSandyRentool said:Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I note that our moment of Brexit is determined by midnight in Brussels, rather than by GMT.
0 -
BoZo's political obituaryTheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
Or survival not that I am bothered either wayScott_P said:
BoZo's political obituaryTheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
0 -
https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/929017702131421184
WARNING! Do not watch if you are of a delicate disposition.0 -
A very small possibility of it happening.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agreed but do you really think that will happen this side of BrexitTheScreamingEagles said:
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politicallyTheScreamingEagles said:
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.OldKingCole said:
Why?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just rolled out Nick Clegg's wife
Would require a Damascene conversion by two of David Davis, Boris Johnson, or Michael Gove.0 -
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Source pleaseanothernick said:
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.surbiton said:
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
The endgame is approaching...0 -
Quick - send Priti on holiday to Brussels to freelance a deal. I hear she has time on her hands.anothernick said:
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Source pleaseanothernick said:
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.surbiton said:
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
The endgame is approaching...0 -
So the Celts and the Romano-Celts didn't particularly go in for stones and inscriptions, then.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not really. There is a distinct lack of post Roman Celtic inscription in any of the areas that had previously been occupied by the Romans. More importantly there is a distinct lack of such inscriptions dating from the Roman period either. If they didn't survive 400 years of Roman occupation they ate hardly likely to.pop up again afterwards.IanB2 said:
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.Richard_Tyndall said:
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at leastIanB2 said:
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.0 -
rcs1000 said:
Didn't one poster say that there was a higher chance of an asteroid hitting him/her than Macron becoming French President?rkrkrk said:
Top 10 of the worst political predictions in the past 24 months.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone got any requests on the threads I should do on Sunday?
Someone who now checks the sky carefully before they venture out.
0 -
Hoping our Foreign secretary has better luck than Patel
0 -
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/929016576635961345?s=17Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/929017702131421184
WARNING! Do not watch if you are of a delicate disposition.0 -
Guido alleging an imminent story coming from the Guaidian about Kelvin Hopkins and a fellow female labour MP0
-
I got the idea from Davis' speech earlier today (reported on BBC WATO) that he doesn't intend to concede anything that he hasn't already compromised over, which as I recall appears to be the sum total of zip!anothernick said:
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Source pleaseanothernick said:
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.surbiton said:
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.AlastairMeeks said:
The logic of this:anothernick said:
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.CarlottaVance said:This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
The endgame is approaching...0 -
Wouldn't surprise me if BoZo had a Damascene conversion after getting sacked. Again.TheScreamingEagles said:A very small possibility of it happening.
Would require a Damascene conversion by two of David Davis, Boris Johnson, or Michael Gove.0
